Recently, the new Private Education Promotion Law, which was deliberated and adopted, clarified the legal framework of classified management of for-profit and non-profit private schools, among which the clause "No for-profit private schools that implement compulsory education shall be established" became the focus of discussion. Some people object mainly because for-profit schools can also provide qualified or even high-quality compulsory education; The existing private schools are rarely purely for non-profit purposes, and the ban may lead to their large-scale withdrawal, affecting the diversification of educational services and the public's right to choose education. Others equate for-profit education with private education, fearing that the government will "squeeze private education".

According to the Compulsory Education Law, compulsory education is "an education that all school-age children and adolescents must receive and a public welfare undertaking that the state must guarantee". The practice of various countries shows that the national responsibility of compulsory education lies in compulsory enrollment and providing free education with basic public service level. However, "provided by the state" does not mean that all compulsory education services are provided by public schools. On the basis of providing basic public services, some compulsory education services can be provided by private schools through government purchase subsidies. Theoretically, the government only needs to ensure the quality of compulsory education services, and does not have to restrict its providers.

Some developing countries in South America and Southeast Asia have a small number of for-profit schools for compulsory education, mainly to attract educational investment and make up for the lack of government finance. Throughout the western developed countries, there is no clear legal provision on whether to allow for-profit compulsory education schools. Research shows that for-profit private schools have not developed in developed countries, largely because of market choice rather than government intervention. The investment in compulsory education brings high benefits to the society and small personal benefits, and both school organizers and parents of students will lose money.

Why should for-profit private schools in China's compulsory education be banned?

First of all, the distorted "market" is not enough to adjust the relationship between supply and demand of education. If there is a market for compulsory education in China, it is a seriously distorted market: the standard of education quality points to taking exams and entering prestigious schools, the society's urgent expectation to change the fate of education, and the family's psychology of following the trend and comparing with others in their children's education, which leads to irrational competition for admission and raises the price of so-called "quality education". In such a market, the profit-seeking nature of capital will in turn strengthen this distortion. The market mechanism can be used for reference, but even if a part of compulsory education is completely handed over to the market, it will be unfair and will not bring the "efficiency" that really belongs to education.

Second, there is no fully competitive market for providing compulsory education. A fully competitive market can reduce the price and improve the quality of products and services, but in the field of public goods, it will fail under the conditions of asymmetric information or monopoly. The teaching process of compulsory education is aimed at minors, who cannot distinguish the quality of the services they receive, and even parents may be vague about this concept, leading to information asymmetry. The experience of many countries also shows that the establishment of for-profit schools needs government approval and cannot be entered at will. In addition, any country or government has clear regulations on the curriculum and teaching of compulsory education, and rules and regulations on the qualifications of principals and teachers and the management of schools, so fair and free competition is impossible. It is too idealistic to think that tuition fees can be reduced and quality can be improved through market competition.

Finally, it is necessary to maintain the barrier between big capital and even "hot money" and academic education. At present, some large enterprises, funds and private hot money are eager for academic education in order to accumulate or transfer assets, seize cash flow and obtain short-term profits. These goals are incompatible with the stability of school development and the environment in which students grow up. In reality, the contradiction between the organizer and the client is very telling. If there is something wrong with the school, the government needs to come out to the bottom, and perhaps taxpayers' money is needed. Liberalizing academic education, especially compulsory education for profit, is actually equivalent to removing the barrier between education and these capitals.

According to the new Law on the Promotion of Private Education, social forces will be able to organize non-academic training, higher education, high school education, preschool education and other private schools other than compulsory education, which will bring long-term benefits to the development of private education. However, we must be absolutely cautious about the liberalization of academic education, especially compulsory education.